As for defending polygamists and/or homosexuals against injustice, I hope you wouldn’t hesitate to do so. If you saw a homosexual or a polygamous man being attacked by a mob, without provocation, I’m sure you would intervene to best of your ability. That’s precisely how I view the FLDS situation. It is one thing for the state to enforce laws against polygamy by prosecuting polygamists – that’s entirely reasonable and just – but as you realize it is quite another to act as CPS did, striking at all families en masse, without warning or due process, causing lifelong trauma to hundreds of previously healthy and non-abused children. I defended these polygamists against the state because they are parents and citizens with rights in this country – and because their children need them.

I think the worst thing about the whole issue is what our society does in response to the FLDS. Rather than thinking “the problems in that cult(ure) are the fault of their weird beliefs and polygamous lifestyle” most Americans seem to think “wow, they’re messed up because they’re religious, but polygamy’s okay so long as its sufficiently equalitarian and feminist.” Every article and documentary I have seen on the FLDS mentions the “good” polygamists. I would be the real, main problem some people have with the FLDS is the prairie dresses. After all, everything in the past was bad, right?

Polygamy and forced marriage, however, are despicable. I’m imagining an analagous situation, where a commune of gay men legally adopt and raise young boys from birth, or perhaps even father them and gain custody. Then, the boys are forced to “marry” older men in the commune. In a case like that, much like in that of the FLDS, I would have some trouble working up the will to defend them, even if the government took unjust actions against them.

So I’m assuming that you mean that it could be a consensual act within what the girl and the man regard as marriage.

1. A consensual marital act;
2. An act that was not defined as abuse just two years ago;
3. An act that is not defined as abuse in many other states.

That’s important because people normally think of much more sinister things when they hear the word “abuse” involving children. Abuse, in Texas, can mean anything from marital intercourse with a 15 y/o bride to things that are too dark even to mention.

I actually do agree with the existence of statutory rape laws that are more or less in this direction. I don’t think consent should be mitigating. The whole point of statutory rape is that it is defined by the age of the people or at least one person involved and not by consent. In a sense, statutory rape laws are some of the only remaining laws in our country recognizing essential nature that cannot simply be tossed aside on the basis of consent, so I think it’s important to hold the line on them. Planned Parenthood routinely ignores both statutory rape and mandatory reporting laws and materially cooperates with underage girls in maintaining sexual relationships that are quite legitimately illegal. Liberals generally are uneasy about condemning underage sex, sometimes even with men much older, usually preferring to make the whole matter come down to one of consent–a very dangerous position that will ultimately (I believe) lead to the legalization of prostitution and perhaps even of minors’ involvement in prostitution.

So to be consistent, I think that such laws should be upheld in this context. My only remaining question would be whether the statutory rape laws should make an exception in the case of marriage. In some states, they do, so that the age of consent is such-and-such, but only if you are unmarried, and the legal age of marriage is something a bit younger. What is strange about that legal set-up is that it treats persons of a particular age as being able to consent to marriage (and then sex within marriage is of course legal) but as being unable legally to give consent to unmarried sex, which I have to admit seems a bit odd. But it does at least maintain the idea that there is a difference between exploiting a girl for unmarried sex and going to the trouble to marry her before having sex with her. In the FLDS situation, though, even if that distinction were present in Texas law (which I gather it isn’t) it would apply only to a first, legal marriage, not to subsequent polygamous “spiritual” marriages. But that seems correct to me as well, as we should not give legal recognition to polygamy.

“You know, I often think about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. What did He do when they came against Him? How did He behave Himself when they forced Him even to carry His own cross? How did He respond even when they were taking His life? ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ That is how I want to be. That is my definition of dignity.

It will take time for our children to forgive and forget. It will take time and commitment and divine assistance to rehabilitate the vulnerable minds of our innocent children. But, I do feel encouraged. The deep and abiding faith of my children has resulted in character that is both resilient and buoyant, as well as pliable, and I believe that everything the Lord has allowed us to experience will add to the growth and increase of character, and will prove to be for our benefit if we trust in Him and not allow ourselves to indulge in a complaining and revengeful spirit. This is my privilege and duty.”

I believe there is only one teenager who is alleged to have become pregnant while underage, in Texas, where the minimum legal age of marriage is now 16 (up from 14 just 2 years ago). Whether or not this “marriage” was forced is another matter and, thus far, has neither been alleged nor confirmed. Keep in mind that Texas defines any sexual activity between an adult male and an underage female as “abuse”, whether “married” or not, whether consensual or not.

Gotta say, I think we should worry overmuch when children are removed from their homes en masse. Definitely a cause for worry, and not a power one human should have over other humans. That’s the point of my free-standing post.

I would add to Mr. Culbreath’s list of reasons for taking my position, 4. Pro-Christian anti-Mormonism. I am not anti-American, nor am I some kind of triumphalist American who thinks the FLDS are evil because they don’t “act like real Americans.” In fact, I am TOTALLY sympathetic to anyone’s right to homeschool their children (I argue strenuously against ANY attempt to insult homeschooling) dress in old-fashioned clothing, seperate themselves from the modern world, etc. In fact, I believe Catholics should do these kinds of things more often.

However, I do believe that in a better nation, we would suppress the FLDS on the grounds that they are a dangerous group of pagans. I would not even suppress all pagans, only those whose religious organizations lead them to such evils as polygamy and child abuse. It sort of comes down to pragmatism versus an unrealistic stand on principle. The FLDS, to me, seem no better than our mainstream culture. Our mainstream culture is no better than the FLDS. Of course we can’t hope to remove all children from being raised in such destructive homes as those of the FLDS or modern American society. However, it is difficult for me to worry overmuch when it does happen. I have this sense in my mind that if we were reading about all of this in a history book, and the FLDS had arisen in the Papal States and been thus broken up by the pope, we would be inclined to praise that pope for taking action.

Yes, the arguments used against the FLDS could be used against anyone else. It might be worth while to defend their rights in order to protect our own rights, but ultimately it will have us defending some highly unpleasant people. I mostly agree with the arguments presented here: certainly “bunching” looks threatening to the mainstream society, and might be dangerous to those who attempt it.

If there were credible accusations of infant-beating by mothers, then I believe the actions of the CPS are much more understandable. If not, then I must agree that the mothers and children should not have been seperated. As for what to do with the polygamous men, well, that is a difficult matter. However, if they did force women to “marry” them, I would point out that Christianity, especially the Catholic Church, has always recognized marriage as a voluntary state, and not accepted forced marriage as acceptable. If mainstream American society sees a problem with polygamy, I see that as an opportunity.